Bezio v. Dorsey
21 N.Y.3d 93
NY2013Background
- Dorsey, an inmate, began a hunger strike in 2010 to gain transfer and raise mistreatment concerns at Great Meadow.
- DOCCS sought a court order to force-feed Dorsey by nasogastric tube and hydrated him, citing imminent risk of death.
- Supreme Court granted the stay-forcing-feeding order unless Dorsey consumed solids with a nutritional supplement.
- Dorsey resumed eating solid food but appealed; Appellate Division deemed the case moot but reviewed a preserved issue under a mootness exception.
- Court addressed preservation of the right to refuse medical treatment and whether the force-feeding order was permissible under constitutional and penological interests.
- Majority affirmed the Appellate Division; dissent argued mootness and preservation were not properly handled and disputed the evidentiary basis for imminent danger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of the right to refuse treatment | Dorsey argued the hearing record preserved the right to refuse treatment. | DOCCS contends preservation not clearly raised at nisi prius; mootness exception applies. | Preserved for review; mootness exception applied. |
| Whether the force-feeding order violated Dorsey's right to refuse treatment | Right to refuse medical treatment should prevail absent compelling state interests. | State may override due to penological interests to preserve life and maintain order. | State interest outweighed individual right to refuse in this prison context. |
| Applicability of Turner v. Safley framework to prison health interventions | Interventions should be narrowly tailored; rights override unless compelling state interests exist. | Turner factors show the intervention is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. | Intervention withstands Turner analysis. |
| Adequacy of institutional-interest proof and testimony | record lacked sufficient institutional-interest evidence due to evidentiary exclusions. | DOCCS relied on established policies and generalized penological interests; some evidence not unique to Dorsey. | Rationale sufficiently tied to institutional interests; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Von Holden v Chapman, 87 AD2d 66 (4th Dept 1982) (upheld force-feeding in hunger strike context; informs state interest)
- Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d 485 (1986) (competence governs right to refuse treatment; balancing interests)
- Matter of Fosmire v Nicoleau, 75 NY2d 218 (1990) (right to refuse treatment exists absent superior state interest)
- Vacco v Quill, 521 US 793 (1997) (distinguishes right to refuse treatment from suicide)
- Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 NY2d 707 (1980) (mootness exception for novel issues likely to recur)